If they're neutral, then "concepts" would not play into any discussion of morality, you are saying,
Once again, you're arguing with a strawman. I'm sorry that you formed a comically incorrect version of my position, and are now furiously trying to tear it down. But that's on you. I did nothing to create or foster your confusion. You did that all on your own.
Let me put this in more concrete terms - and move the discussion back to the ostensible theme of this thread - by posing the following situation: suppose Person A stabs Person B to death. Without more facts, we can't really judge whether Person A was acting morally or not. It's possible that Person A was acting in self-defense, or was seized by a delusion, or simply hated Person B. But let's say that Person A had a personal vendetta against Person B, and so was motivated by revenge. That additional bit of information can certainly help us determine whether or not Person A acted immorally, but even then it's only one bit of additional information.
Now, let's say that Person A only thought
about stabbing Person B to death. Does it matter to our analysis whether Person A also had a personal vendetta against Person B? Is Person A, in other words, morally blameworthy
for having murderous thoughts about Person B if Person A does not act
on those thoughts, and is Person A more
blameworthy if those thoughts are motivated by revenge?